Warren Buffett donates to the Gates foundation.

[big_black]

No offense, but I feel that this is untrue.

Untrue? Congress can pass any law it wants, provided they have the required votes. The Courts are the check against Congress passing a law that violates the Constitution. That is how the System works.

I'm not trying to start an argument, only to point out that it's not 100% true (in my opinion) that all laws that violate the Constitution get thrown out.

Well, that is why we have the Courts. Your opinion on their decision is pretty immaterial. There are plenty of things I dont like in this world, but it is what it is.

I don't recall saying that every law that violates the Constitution gets thrown out. I was clarifying the roles here since you seem to be confused about how things work.

Besides, the Constitution, in my opinion, is a rough framework for how our government is supposed to work, not deal with such specific issues as what the national speed limit should be on interstates, for example.

Your opinion on the Constitution doesn't change the reality of what it is either. It is not a rough framework for how our government is supposed to work, it is a large document that will only get larger as the years pass and we have to further define who we are and how we operate.

I feel like I'm teaching an American Government class here. Go read a book. Please?

[big_black]

And oddly enough, I'm against that. I don't think it's the role of the Constitution for people to amend it when they want to force an issue to be nation-wide blanket law. It should be per state, and up to that state itself, in my opinion.

I suggest you vote supporters out of office then.

[JB_From_Hell]

It looks to me like some people are hiding behind the thread....

I'm not hiding behind a thread. I'm sorry if you find my comments "under-handed". If I was too subtle, allow me to rephrase.... stop hiding behind the bible.

Also, since you don't believe you're being bigoted, can we agree that you are indeed discriminating based upon sexual orientation?

[neosadist]

I'm not hiding behind a thread. I'm sorry if you find my comments "under-handed". If I was too subtle, allow me to rephrase.... stop hiding behind the bible. Also, since you don't believe you're being bigoted, can we agree that you are indeed discriminating based upon sexual orientation?

1) I'm not hiding. And definitely not behind the Bible. I come out and say what I think and feel. I don't insult people third-person.
2) And no, I'm not being bigoted. I never said anything like "they're all Satan's puppets" or "let's go round 'em up and shoot 'em all". In fact, I'm against violence against people whose opinion or lifestyle you don't share. I understand how they feel.

[Willis]

2) And no, I'm not being bigoted. I never said anything like "they're all Satan's puppets" or "let's go round 'em up and shoot 'em all". In fact, I'm against violence against people whose opinion or lifestyle you don't share. I understand how they feel.

You didn't answer his question

Also, since you don't believe you're being bigoted, can we agree that you are indeed discriminating based upon sexual orientation?

[tone4days]

And oddly enough, I'm against that. I don't think it's the role of the Constitution for people to amend it when they want to force an issue to be nation-wide blanket law. It should be per state, and up to that state itself, in my opinion.

yunno big black and JBfH ... he's right ... laws of this type really should be a matter of states rights ... if those tree huggin' granola crunchin' queer luvin' blue states want to damn themselves to eternal damnation they should be free to outlaw slavery, give women folk the right to vote, and all that other hooey - that's fine ... but those liberals have no right jammin' it down the throats of every good red state

[JB_From_Hell]

3) I think we should think about the effect on adoption. True, a home with two men is better (I would guess) than being in state foster care the rest of your life. But isn't this going to cause problems at school? At home? At work? I understand that people need to be understanding and tolerant, and I don't wish anyone any harm at all, but I feel that it's going to just complicate the child's future for no reason but that some gay men who can't naturally have kids want to look like a normal family so they adopt kids. I think that those couples are thinking more about their own wants than the kids' needs. (But then again, like I said, when compared to state ran foster care....) For example, sure, my kid wasn't planned for, but I'm going to be the best father I can and raise him the best I possibly can.

How many gay couples trying to adopt kids have you spoken with? What is your reason for thinking they're more trying to look "normal" than caring about the kid?

[JB_From_Hell]

yunno big black and JBfH ... he's right ... laws of this type really should be a matter of states rights ... if those tree huggin' granola crunchin' queer luvin' blue states want to damn themselves to eternal damnation they should be free to outlaw slavery, give women folk the right to vote, and all that other hooey - that's fine ... but those liberals have no right jammin' it down the throats of every good red state

That made me lol really hard

[big_black]

yunno big black and JBfH ... he's right ... laws of this type really should be a matter of states rights ... if those tree huggin' granola crunchin' queer luvin' blue states want to damn themselves to eternal damnation they should be free to outlaw slavery, give women folk the right to vote, and all that other hooey - that's fine ... but those liberals have no right jammin' it down the throats of every good red state

I agree too. I'm a big supporter of States Rights and I beleive this issue should be decided there. Conservatives (States Rights supporters too...when it is convenient) want to get this amendment through otherwise all states will be forced to recognize these marriages. They don't want to risk losing in the Courts.

[ratherdashing]

[ratherdashing]

[JB_From_Hell]

If it was genetic that you're either gay or straight, and I'm guessing the majority of people in the world are straight, wouldn't that mean that being gay is a deviation from the psychological norm, therefore they must all be in need of drugs and/or treatment?

That's damn near fascist.

[firebirdVII]

Everyone is different, there is no need to ruin lives because of some concieved notion of what is correct. It has been done before (an example being a brilliant mathematician named Turing who eventually commited suicide) and this line of thought makes it possible for it to be done again.

[JB_From_Hell]

You didn't answer his question

+1

[JB_From_Hell]

I'm not being bigotist at all. They want equal treatment on unequal circumstances.

Should mentally retarded people not be allowed to watch television?
Should Canadians not be allowed as much oxygen as Americans?
Should fat people have to work 7 days a week?
Should short people have to pay more taxes than tall people?

If I were to say any of these things should be, you would think me unjust, and awfully discriminatory.

[SpiderVenom]

How the heck did a post about philanthropy turn into this?

[JB_From_Hell]

It's fairly evident on page 1.

[SpiderVenom]

It's fairly evident on page 1.

Wow. That went bad fast.

[Skarekrough]

How the heck did a post about philanthropy turn into this?

...have you ever met Phll?

The dude's outta hand....

[JB_From_Hell]

...have you ever met Phll?

The dude's outta hand....

And what about his sister, Miss Anthropy? Not exactly what you'd call a socialite.